"Ann R. Stevens" <xxxxxx@OSP.EMORY.EDU> writes:

>Question to anyone out there:  In your misconduct policy, do you have
>a standard of proof for determining whether evidence warrants a
>finding of misconduct in science. It is my understanding that one
>recommendation  coming out of NSF Inspections at universities is that
>we should have such a standard specified in our policies.
>
>I always thought that the standard would be proof (evidence) that
>someone committed misconduct as defined in our policy.

At UCONN Health Center we have adopted the principle of "preponderance of
evidence" as the standard of proof.  We have been  advised by the CT Attorney
General's Office that standards of proof in administrative proceedings are
different from those in criminal proceedings where the standard is "beyond a
reasonable doubt".  You may be interested in reviewing ORI's paper on Issues
in misconduct investigations.  It may be found on the web at:

http://phs.os.dhhs.gov/phs/ori/other/issues2.html

I should add that although we have adopted this principle in our deliberations,
it is not included in our policy.

Regards,

Len
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard P. Paplauskas    Assistant Vice President for Research     |
203-679-3173             University of Connecticut Health Center   |
FAX 679-2670             Farmington, CT   06030-5355               |
 |
xxxxxx@sun.uchc.edu                                            |
xxxxxx@neuron.uchc.edu                                           |
--------------------------------------------------------------------